Versatile Spellcaster + 2 caster levels = Legit?

[sorcererlover]

So everyone knows this trick. Grab Versatile Spellcaster and use two of your highest level spell slots to cast a spell you normally don't have access to at your level.

For example, malconvoker adds lesser planar binding to your spell known. SO a sorcerer at level 9 could use two of his level 4 spell slots to cast lesser planar binding.

The biggest opposition to this trick is the people claiming that there is a minimum caster level for every spell for every class.

SO, if I boost my caster level by 2 to meet the minimum caster level, is this trick legit with all those opposed silenced?

[Troacctid]

Sort of. It depends on the specifics. I think the version you're describing would work.

[NerdHut]

The text for Versatile Spellcaster specifies that you must know the spell in order to cast it. And the mechanics of the game limit your spells known to spells of a level you can ordinarily cast. This "trick" you're referencing isn't in the RAW or RAI, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of the feat's text.

You're also misinterpreting how caster level works. While by default, a Sorcerer's caster level and sorcerer level are equal, they are not the same. Any feat or ability that increases your caster level does not then grant you access to new spells. You class level determines what spells you have access to, not your caster level. So boosting a 9th level sorcerer's caster level to 10, by any means, does not grant them access to 5th level spells. It merely makes some of the spells they already have access to more powerful.

[sorcererlover]

The text for Versatile Spellcaster specifies that you must know the spell in order to cast it. And the mechanics of the game limit your spells known to spells of a level you can ordinarily cast. This "trick" you're referencing isn't in the RAW or RAI, it's a deliberate misinterpretation of the feat's text.

You're also misinterpreting how caster level works. While by default, a Sorcerer's caster level and sorcerer level are equal, they are not the same. Any feat or ability that increases your caster level does not then grant you access to new spells. You class level determines what spells you have access to, not your caster level. So boosting a 9th level sorcerer's caster level to 10, by any means, does not grant them access to 5th level spells. It merely makes some of the spells they already have access to more powerful.

You did not understand what I wrote.

Malconvoker explicitly says it adds the planar binding line of spells directly to your spell known. My caster level and sorcerer level do not matter. When I take that 2nd level of malconvoker I know the 3 planar binding spells.

Versatile spellcaster explicitly says you can cast any spell you know by using two spell slots of a lower level.

Therefore, since I have 2 level 4 spell slots, and I know the 5th level spell lesser planar binding, I can cast lesser planar binding with my 2 level 4 spell slots even if I am not level 11.

The biggest opposition to this trick were people claiming that spells have a minimum caster level. In the sorcerer's case, the minimum caster level for lesser planar binding is 10, and these people kept repeating that because my caster level is 8 not 10, I cannot use versatile spellcaster to cast lesser planar binding.

So now I'm saying if I boost my caster level by 2 so it's 10 not 8, does anyone still claim this trick doesn't work?

[DeTess]

So now I'm saying if I boost my caster level by 2 so it's 10 not 8, does anyone still claim this trick doesn't work?

As Nerdhut said, your caster-level has nothing to do with what spells you can cast. The versatile spellcaster trick is either allowed or disallowed by your DM, and that's the end of it.

[sorcererlover]

As Nerdhut said, your caster-level has nothing to do with what spells you can cast. The versatile spellcaster trick is either allowed or disallowed by your DM, and that's the end of it.

Again, the people who claim this trick didn't work said it didn't work because you didn't have the requisite caster level to cast higher level spells.


The biggest opposition to this trick were people claiming that spells have a minimum caster level. In the sorcerer's case, the minimum caster level for lesser planar binding is 10, and these people kept repeating that because my caster level is 8 not 10, I cannot use versatile spellcaster to cast lesser planar binding.

[DeTess]

Again, the people who claim this trick didn't work said it didn't work because you didn't have the requisite caster level to cast higher level spells.

I have never seen this argument, and I don't think there's a RAW argument for it. The only argument I've seen against it is people claiming that you either don't know the higher level spell, or need to have spell slots of the level you want to create a new one for using versatile spellcaster.

Edit: though if there is such an argument, increasing your caster-level would remove it.

Anyway, as I said before, your dm will either allow or disallow this cheese, and nothibg this forum says or does will change that.

[Mordaedil]

Curious, can I use this rule to cast level 10 or 11 spells pre-epic? For metamagic use of course.

I'm thinking of picking up Twin, Empower/Maximize, Ocular and Split spell feats and reduce the cost with an Arcane Thesis, but it gets a bit high-level for its own good. On an Orb of Cold as a Frost Mage.

[Florian]

You did not understand what I wrote.

Quite well. There's a lot of PrC that add spells to your spells known. You've just got to have the right sorcerer level to actually have those spells known, which are based on the table on the sorcerer class description. You don't have the "bonus" spell known until you gain access to spells known of that level, then you get it. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change any of it when you're willfully ignoring the basics here.

[Mordaedil]

I wonder if you could cast a higher level spell if you have a runestaff or a knowstone required.

[Zaq]

The rules imply that you need a certain minimum CL to cast spells of a given level. The implication is that you usually have the minimum necessary CL at the level you can first access the spell (e.g., for a Wizard, CL 3 for second level spells, CL 5 for third level spells, etc.). So the argument, if I understand you correctly, is that without hitting that minimum CL, even having a "slot" (Versatile Spellcaster doesn't grant a true slot, but you understand) of a certain level and a spell known of that same level aren't enough to cast that spell without the requisite CL, right?

The weird part is that what I keep referring to as an implication isn't really spelled out in black and white in the rules text. There's one or two specific examples (pretty sure Fireball is one, of course) hidden in weird places in the rules text (I think there's at least one in the magic item rules?) that state that a specific spell cannot go below a certain CL, but I think that that's never generalized to a system-wide rule. (Probably because there weren't a whole lot of ways in Core to reduce CL and/or to gain slots faster than a straight-class Wizard could gain them, so the devs may have thought that it wouldn't be necessary, though for all we know they may have been future-proofing to prevent screwing over future fast-progression classes, at least if we're being generous.) Which means you're basically in "the rules don't say I can't do this" territory, which as we all know, isn't always the strongest ground to be on.

It pretty much comes down to a GM call. By RAW, you're likely to be correct that you can combine a "slot" with a spell known and get an instance of a cast spell out of it. That said, it's unlikely that Versatile Spellcaster is intended to give you the effect you're talking about, so it's not exactly the worst example of GM tyranny if they frown on such a thing. As I said, there's a common thread of implication about minimum CL running through the magic rules. It just isn't ever actually stated in a universal manner.

Of course, if your GM rules that you cannot cast a spell without hitting the minimum CL, effects that penalize enemy CL (which are rare but do exist) become slightly more useful. Still not great, but hey, sometimes it's fun to take what one can get.

[umbergod]

Quite well. There's a lot of PrC that add spells to your spells known. You've just got to have the right sorcerer level to actually have those spells known, which are based on the table on the sorcerer class description. You don't have the "bonus" spell known until you gain access to spells known of that level, then you get it. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change any of it when you're willfully ignoring the basics here.

Can you provide a source for this?

[heavyfuel]

The rules imply that you need a certain minimum CL to cast spells of a given level. The implication is that you usually have the minimum necessary CL at the level you can first access the spell (e.g., for a Wizard, CL 3 for second level spells, CL 5 for third level spells, etc.). So the argument, if I understand you correctly, is that without hitting that minimum CL, even having a "slot" (Versatile Spellcaster doesn't grant a true slot, but you understand) of a certain level and a spell known of that same level aren't enough to cast that spell without the requisite CL, right?

The weird part is that what I keep referring to as an implication isn't really spelled out in black and white in the rules text. There's one or two specific examples (pretty sure Fireball is one, of course) hidden in weird places in the rules text (I think there's at least one in the magic item rules?) that state that a specific spell cannot go below a certain CL


It is explicitly said in the rules text. There's nothing implied to it.

The quote you're thinking about is on page 171 of the PHB


You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question , and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level. For example, at 10th level, Mialee can cast a fireball to a range of 800 feet for 10d6 points of damage. If she wishes, she can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected caster level, and she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th ( the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball ).

[sorcererlover]

I wonder if you could cast a higher level spell if you have a runestaff or a knowstone required.

Knowstone? Yes. Runestaff? No. It has to be a spell that you know and Runestaves don't add the spells they hold to your spell known.


Quite well. There's a lot of PrC that add spells to your spells known. You've just got to have the right sorcerer level to actually have those spells known, which are based on the table on the sorcerer class description. You don't have the "bonus" spell known until you gain access to spells known of that level, then you get it. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change any of it when you're willfully ignoring the basics here.

Ultimate Magus explicitly states you can have spells that you know but cannot cast. Malconvoker explicitly states it adds those spells to your spell known. I think it's pretty clear you are incorrect here.

[Florian]

Ultimate Magus explicitly states you can have spells that you know but cannot cast. Malconvoker explicitly states it adds those spells to your spell known. I think it's pretty clear you are incorrect here.

That's only relevant for handling spell completion items and UMD. They were just too dumb to use the simple phrase of "treat the spell as it were on your class spell list".

[Quertus]

Ultimate Magus explicitly states you can have spells that you know but cannot cast.

Can you provide details here, please? There's a lot of words that serve double and triple duty in D&D, not just poor over worked "level".

[umbergod]

That's only relevant for handling spell completion items and UMD. They were just too dumb to use the simple phrase of "treat the spell as it were on your class spell list".

Got a source for that one as well? Or are you just treating your interpretations as rules?

[Calthropstu]

You get it added as spells known as a 5th/6th/8th level spell. But, since you can't cast such spells, and no feat allows you to cast spells you can't ordinarily cast, the argument is moot.

You are trying to cheese a feat to cheese a spell which can be used for cheese in order to obtain more cheese.

Say no to cheese.

[umbergod]

You get it added as spells known as a 5th/6th/8th level spell. But, since you can't cast such spells, and no feat allows you to cast spells you can't ordinarily cast, the argument is moot.

You are trying to cheese a feat to cheese a spell which can be used for cheese in order to obtain more cheese.

Say no to cheese.

Well given that warmages know their entire spell list at creation, its not that unheard of

[Zarvistic]

Well given that warmages know their entire spell list at creation, its not that unheard of
Not sure where this part comes from, so to fall in with the rest of the thread.. "Got a source for that?"
Just kidding, but still curious how that exactly works as I can't quite find it?

[umbergod]

Not sure where this part comes from, so to fall in with the rest of the thread.. "Got a source for that?"
Just kidding, but still curious how that exactly works as I can't quite find it?

Ooops i was mixing up a feat description and warmage. They learn all the spells on their list of a particular level when they become able to cast that level >.> soooo my previous statement is wrooooong

[Florian]

Not sure where this part comes from, so to fall in with the rest of the thread.. "Got a source for that?"
Just kidding, but still curious how that exactly works as I can't quite find it?

Again, just stupid wording. Fixed list casters "know" their whole spell list. Some people like to interpret that they "know" their 9th level spells from the beginning, based on that.

In general, umbergod, specific beats general does not make the specific into the general, very simple thing of handling issues. Don't ask for proof when you have got to provide that the specific would alter the general, the basis of cheese arguments.

[sorcererlover]

That's only relevant for handling spell completion items and UMD. They were just too dumb to use the simple phrase of "treat the spell as it were on your class spell list".


Expanded Spell Knowledge (Ex): At 2nd level, you can select one 0- or 1st-level arcane spell from your spellbook and add it to the list of arcane spells known for a spontaneous casting class, even if you can't yet spontaneously cast spells of that level.(In this case, you would know the spell but wouldn't be able to cast it until you had spell slots of the appropriate level.)

Pretty sure there's no ambiguity here.

[umbergod]

Again, just stupid wording. Fixed list casters "know" their whole spell list. Some people like to interpret that they "know" their 9th level spells from the beginning, based on that.

In general, umbergod, specific beats general does not make the specific into the general, very simple thing of handling issues. Don't ask for proof when you have got to provide that the specific would alter the general, the basis of cheese arguments.

Im not the one claiming that OP's idea won't work based on what i am interpretting from the rules, you are, without also providing proof of your claims. So no, you still gotta provide proof of your claims, otherwise youre arguing "rules as i interpret them" which is not what OP was asking for.

[Buufreak]

Pretty sure there's no ambiguity here.

You are absolutely right. There isn't any ambiguity. There. Right there. In that single situation that applies specifically to Ultimate Magus.

However, it has absolutely no bearing on anything else.

[BowStreetRunner]

Malconvoker explicitly says it adds the planar binding line of spells directly to your spell known.

Actually, it doesn't.

It states "you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels." The indicated level for lesser planar binding is 5th.
So it is a 5th level sorcerer spell for the Malconvoker.

[sorcererlover]

You are absolutely right. There isn't any ambiguity. There. Right there. In that single situation that applies specifically to Ultimate Magus.

However, it has absolutely no bearing on anything else.

That quote was to establish that PrCs have the power to add spells they cannot cast yet to their spell known.


Actually, it doesn't.

It states "you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels." The indicated level for lesser planar binding is 5th.
So it is a 5th level sorcerer spell for the Malconvoker.

Your point? Upon gaining 2nd level malconvoker, I add lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding at the indicated levels (5, 6, and 8) to my list of known spells.

What are your points exactly? That Malconvoker doesn't add those spells directly to my sorcerer's spell known upon reaching 2nd level malconvoker?

[Troacctid]

I have never seen this argument, and I don't think there's a RAW argument for it. The only argument I've seen against it is people claiming that you either don't know the higher level spell, or need to have spell slots of the level you want to create a new one for using versatile spellcaster.

Edit: though if there is such an argument, increasing your caster-level would remove it.

Anyway, as I said before, your dm will either allow or disallow this cheese, and nothibg this forum says or does will change that.
I've made the argument before. Although I'm pretty sure I would typically append it with "...so you'd need a way to boost your caster level as well."


Curious, can I use this rule to cast level 10 or 11 spells pre-epic? For metamagic use of course.

I'm thinking of picking up Twin, Empower/Maximize, Ocular and Split spell feats and reduce the cost with an Arcane Thesis, but it gets a bit high-level for its own good. On an Orb of Cold as a Frost Mage.
It should work fine for metamagic, but remember you can only get a one-level boost out of it.


That quote was to establish that PrCs have the power to add spells they cannot cast yet to their spell known.
You could interpret it as being a reminder, I guess, but I wouldn't read it as being generally applicable, and even if it were generally applicable, I think Versatile Spellcaster would constitute an exception.

[BowStreetRunner]

Your point? Upon gaining 2nd level malconvoker, I add lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding at the indicated levels (5, 6, and 8) to my list of known spells.

What are your points exactly? That Malconvoker doesn't add those spells directly to my sorcerer's spell known upon reaching 2nd level malconvoker?

You add those spells to your known spells at the level where your Sorcerer levels plus any prestige levels make those spells eligible.

"At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–17: Sorcerer Spells Known." (Player's Handbook p 54) Table 3-17 shows 5th level spells become available at 10th level of sorcerer.

"At each level beyond 1st, you gain new spells per day and an increase in caster level (and spells known, if applicable) as if you had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which you belonged before adding the prestige class level." (Complete Scoundrel p 48 under the Malconvoker entry) Note that no exception is stated for gaining spells known if not applicable.

"Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels. If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level. 5th: lesser planar binding. 6th: planar binding. 8th: greater planar binding." Note that you can add the spells at the indicated levels (they are by default 5th, 6th, and 8th level spells for the malconvoker) unless your caster class already has them on its list at a lower level in which case they are treated as that level. Again, it does not provide an exception to allow you to have them on your known list immediately. You have to wait until those spell levels are applicable.

[icefractal]

If the trick works, you don't need anything adding spells to your list, you just need Heighten Spell.

Based on the quote heavyfuel mentioned, it looks like you'd need to raise your CL also.

My feeling is that (with the CL boost) it does work RAW, although disallowing it would be entirely reasonable for a GM to do.


Incidentally, in PF you can cast spells four levels higher than normal by using Sacred Geometry plus traits. I haven't found any "killer app" for doing so though; PF PrCs tend to be unimpressive and have other requirements like skill ranks.

Although the combo does also let you stick free metamagic on all your spells, so that's cool.

[sorcererlover]

"Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels. If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level. 5th: lesser planar binding. 6th: planar binding. 8th: greater planar binding." Note that you can add the spells at the indicated levels (they are by default 5th, 6th, and 8th level spells for the malconvoker) unless your caster class already has them on its list at a lower level in which case they are treated as that level. Again, it does not provide an exception to allow you to have them on your known list immediately. You have to wait until those spell levels are applicable.

You just made that part up.

Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels.

Indicated levels = spell level. So at malconvoker 2 you add the spells at the indicated spell levels unless they are at a different level.

No ambiguity here. The only requirement of adding those spells to your spell known is Malconvoker 2. I highly doubt anyone here agrees with you on this matter.

It doesn't say add those spells to your spell known when you reach level 10, or when you reach 5th spell level. It says add them when you hit 2nd malconvoker level.

[BowStreetRunner]

"At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table: Sorcerer Spells Known."

The table limits you to gaining 5th level spells only upon reaching 10th level as a sorcerer. That is EXPLICIT in the rules for Sorcerers. Show me where the Malconvoker class description EXPLICITLY states that you are allowed an exception to overcome that limitation. It doesn't. It says you get them at the indicated level, not before. Lesser Planar Binding is still a 5th level spell and you don't get those until 10th level.

In order to bypass the sorcerer spell progression you would need an EXPLICIT rule stating that you can do so. Just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can. You're the one making things up. But I don't expect anyone is going to convince you. You didn't come here to listen to anyone who disagreed with you. You came here hoping to find others to reinforce the same opinion you hold and are only prepared to reject anything else, not to listen and seriously consider an opposing point of view.

[Zaq]

It is explicitly said in the rules text. There's nothing implied to it.

The quote you're thinking about is on page 171 of the PHB

See, we're really close to agreeing. I agree that there's a super strong implication there. But aside from Fireball requiring a minimum of CL 5 for a Wizard to cast, the rules text doesn't say what the minimum CL is for other spells, and it doesn't explicitly state a general formula. It wouldn't be hard to do. It could be worded exactly like how pg. 63 of the XPH shows how many PP a power of a given level costs. (Psionics makes it easy, because you can't spend more PP on one manifestation than your ML, so by definition, there's a minimum ML to manifest a given power equal to the number of PP it costs, barring shenanigans.)

Yeah, it's easy to infer that the minimum CL is the first level at which your class is capable of granting you access to a given spell. But it doesn't actually say that. And that immediately runs into edge cases with Sorcerers (using the implied formula, is the minimum CL for a Sorcerer to cast a 4th level spell 7 or 8? Why? If it's 7, what about the minimum CL for a Sorcerer-specific spell?), let alone classes with weird progression (Ur-Priest, for one). This is where the ambiguity comes in.

Again, I make no argument contesting the fact that the rules seem to think that there's a formula for minimum CL. But the PHB doesn't come out and say what that formula is. As I said in my earlier post, you do quickly end up in the shaky territory of "the rules don't say I can't cast Planar Binding at CL 5 [or whatever] when I already have the spell known and a pseudoslot available." I freely admit that it's shaky territory, but it's also unfortunately true in this case. The rules do say that you can't go below the minimum CL. What's the minimum CL? The rules don't say, except for the specific case of a Wizard casting Fireball. Maybe the minimum CL is "whatever CL you happen to be when you first happen to gain the spell as a spell known, regardless of when that happens to be." That's probably less likely than "(spell level × 2 ) – 1, minimum 1" or something, but neither shows up in the text. Which is dumb. If there's a rule about a minimum we can't go under, we should know what that minimum is. I'm not arguing that this is good design. But we haven't filled nine or so threads with discussions about RAW dysfunctions for nothing.

(There's also the weird side argument about the phrasing on PHB pg. 171 involving the term "the caster level you choose," meaning that the minimum CL thing might not kick in unless you're voluntarily reducing your CL for some reason. That's hella shaky ground, but we're already in hairsplitting RAW dysfunction territory, so I'll at least throw in a side mention.)

And as I also said in my earlier post, I really wouldn't get up in arms about a GM stepping in and saying "no, the minimum CL for a 6th level spell is 11, so you can't cast a 6th level spell if your CL is below 11 for some reason." That's an entirely reasonable GM ruling, even when I generally come down on the side of "let the players do cool things" in my GMing philosophy (assuming that all the players are doing equivalently cool things). It's also a ruling rather than a rule, because the actual rules text thought that something was so obvious that it didn't need to be spelled out when it's actually less obvious than one might think even if one isn't being intentionally obtuse.

[sorcererlover]

You're the one making things up. But I don't expect anyone is going to convince you. You didn't come here to listen to anyone who disagreed with you. You came here hoping to find others to reinforce the same opinion you hold and are only prepared to reject anything else, not to listen and seriously consider an opposing point of view.

This is you not me. You don't like this trick so you are just blindly yelling nonsensical arguments in hopes that your volume overcomes logic. And then when no one agrees with you you start throwing a tantrum and insulting other people.


In order to bypass the sorcerer spell progression you would need an EXPLICIT rule stating that you can do so. Just because it doesn't say you can't, doesn't mean you can.

There is an explicit rule. It explicitly tells you to add the spells at their indicated (spell) levels upon reaching 2nd level malconvoker. What part of this is so hard to understand?

It says, at malconvoker 2nd level, add the spells to your list of known spells.
It.
Says.
Add.
The.
Spells.
To.
Your.
List.
Of.
Known.
Spells.
At the indicated (spell) levels.
So.
You.
Add.
Lesser.
Planar.
Binding.
To.
Your.
List.
Of.
Level.
5.
Known.
Spells.

Are you saying the "Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels. If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level."

is actually saying

"Planar Binding: Beginning at 2nd level, you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels when you reach the appropriate level to obtain spells of that level normally. If you already have one or more of these spells on your class list at a different level, treat it as being of the lower level.

Nope, it doesn't, you added that part.

If it says add spells to your known spells, you add spells to your known spells.
If it says add it when you reach 2nd level malconvoker, you add it when you obtain 2nd level malconvoker.
If it says add it when you reach 10th level sorcerer, you add it when you reach 10th level sorcerer. Oh wait, it doesn't say that. It just says 2nd level.
If it says add the spells when you are of appropriate spellcaster level then you add it when you are of appropriate spellcaster level. Oh wait, it doesn't say that. I just says at 2nd level.

So you have your explicit rule, yet you are blind to it. You add sentences so it changes to your liking and then you say its not an explicit rule.

I am listening to anyone who disagrees with me. Except you don't know how to read so I am not listening to you. You're literally the only person in this thread who says this doesn't work. Others disapprove of this trick, but they don't say it doesn't work. Only you do.

So maybe you should take your own advice and listen to others instead of hoping to find others to reinforce the same opinion you hold and are only prepared to reject anything else, not to listen and seriously consider an opposing point of view.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Edit: though if there is such an argument, increasing your caster-level would remove it.
This answers the original question. Personally, I don't think said argument holds water, but that's just my opinion.

As for Malconvoker adding spells to your spell list, I agree that you do get planar binding et al. as spells known, even if you cannot normally cast them yet. The sorcerer rules quoted by BowStreetRunner have absolutely no bearing on non-sorcerer level ways to gain spells. They only specify how you gain spells through sorcerer levels specifically; other abilities are completely free to add spells known in any way possible. However, I do suggest you calm down a bit, sorcererlover. Line breaks and periods are more effective if you use them in moderation.

[RoboEmperor]

I've been on the side of "There is no minimum CL level for spells for classes" and that the minimum CL for casting/scroll creation is based on the character not class, but I've changed my mind now.

Everywhere I look there's always mention of a minimum CL for class. I've been using Sublime Chord, Nar Demonbinder, and Ur-Priests to argue that there wasn't a minimum CL for class, but I've come to realize these are just exceptions to the rule. d&d is full of exceptions to the rule so the existence of these 3 accelerated progression classes do not disprove general rules.

Personally I think there is no doubt that you can use Versatile Spellcaster to cast higher level spells than you normally can. The rules and even the FAQ says you can.

I also believe that this isn't really a balance issue or "cheese" since...
1. it applies to spontaneous casters who are never played because of their extremely huge downsides.
2. it requires an incredible investment of resources due to the extreme difficulty of adding spell known to spontaneous casters. In the OP's example, you need spell focus conjuration, augment summoning, versatile spellcaster, +2 CL from somewhere (these aren't cheap), and the loss of a spellcaster level all in order to obtain lesser planar binding 1 level quicker than prepared casters. It's like you designed your entire character to be 1 level quicker for planar binding compared to prepared casters, and 1 level later, your character is going to be completely inferior to prepared casters in every way because they can do everything you can do and they spent their resources elsewhere.

As to whether Dread Necromancers and the like gain their entire spell lists if they have versatile spellcaster + heighten spell, I don't know.

Advice to the OP, if your goal is planar binding instead of just using it as an example, get the Summon Domain somehow because it adds +2 CL to your conjuration(calling) spells.

@BowStreetRunner
You really shouldn't throw insults at people like that. And in this scenario you are most definitely wrong. ExLibrisMortis put it better than I can ever. I wish I was as articulate as that guy @_@.

edit:
I've also been waiting for someone to make the "You can't cast "-" spells" argument. Surprised no one has yet.

[BluesEclipse]

Posting from phone atm, so cannot format effectively. But under “Abilities and Spellcasters” in the SRD, it says “In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.”. This pretty explicitly says it is class level rather than caster level which lets you casts spells of a set level, regardless of whether you know them or not. Versatile Spellcaster does not mention an exception to this rule, unless there is errata I am missing somewhere.

[Calthropstu]

I am going to refer the OP to his GM.
I am guessing his GM said no (suspects his gm will) so he is trying to throw a hissy fit here to get people to agree with him, then point his gm here and say "look at all these people who agree with me."

Except most don't so I don't think it will work.

I reiterate, say no to cheese.

[Segev]

The correct answer, for any practical optimization (i.e. something being built for a game), is, "Ask your GM." If the GM is asking, our answer should be one relating to the balance for his game, not to the legalisms of the rules.

That said, for the fun TO rules lawyering argument, I have to side with the position that points out that when the rules say "of a level for you to be able to cast it" or any variant thereon, they never specify that "you" can only cast it if your class gives you a spell slot of that level.

What this means is that Mialee, in the example, can't cast fireball at 3rd CL (for 3d6), because she has no means that would have allowed her to cast it when she was 3rd level. This doesn't actually say that no wizard can cast 3rd level spells at lower than 5th level.

In fact, the rules as written would permit any wizard who had the capacity to cast a 3rd level spell out of a slot they would have had at 1st level to choose to cast a 1d6 fireball at (selected) CL 1. Because that wizard could have cast a 3rd level spell at CL 1. Similarly, a caster with Precocious Apprentice could cast the one 2nd level spell that the feat let them cast early at CL 1, even after they have passed the level that gives them the spell normally.

[death390]

i was going to point out precocious apprentice feat but Segev beat me to it. if there is a "minimum caster level" to cast spells of a given level, precocious apprentice would not work.

now if somone wants to say specific beats general. then versatile spellcaster is specific. "You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows."

this means that IF YOU KNOW A 2nd level spell you can cast it PERIOD. IE a wizard with the spontaneous summoning ACF can cast and 2nd level spell in his spellbook (as from scribing a spell from a scroll) using 2 first lvl spell slots.

this means that if there is a MINIMUM CASTER LEVEL versatile spellcaster bypasses it.



now the second question is if you know a spell of a spell level you could not normally cast.
the following assumes that you somehow have the feat legit (sorc 1/ wizard 1 for example) & have 2 slots 1 level lower

wizards can cast ANY spell in their spellbook
a sorcerer/bard with a knowstone can cast the spell from a knowstone
cleric/druid/ranger know all the spells on their list so they can cast any spell off their list.

dread necro/beguiler/warmage: these are DM based since "gains access to a new level of spell" could be construed as must be class level that gets you 0 or 1 instead of - or it could mean that since versatile spellcaster enables you to cast x level of spells you know all of your spells of that level (i am in the camp that versatile spellcaster gives you access and thus enables you to cast 2nd lvl spells at beguiler 1 for 2 spell levels)

[sorcererlover]

I am going to refer the OP to his GM.
I am guessing his GM said no (suspects his gm will) so he is trying to throw a hissy fit here to get people to agree with him, then point his gm here and say "look at all these people who agree with me."

Except most don't so I don't think it will work.

I reiterate, say no to cheese.

You are an extremely judgemental person who makes way too many assumptions. My DM said yes to this trick because he said spontaneous casters needs more love and the reason I posted this thread anyways is to satisfy my curiosity. Is my DM bending the rules just to be nice? Or is this legit? I remember that the minimum CL argument was one of the most vocal arguments against this trick so I posted this thread. My DM didn't even care about any possible minimum CL argument.

Not everyone believes this trick is cheese. In fact most people here said yes, this is legal. And the people opposed to its legitimacy, some people (not all) here posted some really good arguments and I'm observing to see how they resolve.

All you did in this thread is cry like a baby about how much you hate this trick and did absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion at hand. So perhaps you should stop posting in this thread. Seriously. Stop. You are on the same level as the other guy who was completely wrong yet called others stubborn idiots for not changing their opinion after hearing his incorrect argument. In fact you are coming to his defense because he is the only other person in this thread who said no to this trick.

So seriously, if you have nothing intelligible to add to the discussion, don't post. Don't post at all. And no, saying the word cheese as many times as you can does not count as intelligible.

Seeing how you even call planar binding as cheese shows you are a super low-op player, which is fine, but to insult others who don't share your view on the game really shows the type of person you are.

ExLibrisMortis told me to calm down so I've been acting chill, but wow, just look at that. People hurling personal insults at me because they don't like this trick and have absolutely nothing to add to the conversation at hand. Really shows their level of intelligence.

[Mordaedil]

He didn't throw any insult your way, he threw an accusation.

Now, it's not fun to be the victim of false accusations, but it's not the same as a personal attack. The other person was just uninformed, so you can just be calm and correct them and they will have no recourse but to apologize for their rash judgement.

That's all there is to it.

[Calthropstu]

He didn't throw any insult your way, he threw an accusation.

Now, it's not fun to be the victim of false accusations, but it's not the same as a personal attack. The other person was just uninformed, so you can just be calm and correct them and they will have no recourse but to apologize for their rash judgement.

That's all there is to it.

This. And planar binding is cheese plain and simple. I have never not seen it used for cheese, even by myself. Getting even just one 12 hd creature for your own personal use is cheese. It severely hurt my game anyways when I bound a coatl to my service.

I once used it to throw a hundred hound archons at my enemies to serve as spies and agents of good in a city overrun by evil. Cheese.

I once used it to get 30 wishes to bump all of my stats by +5. Cheese.

If your gm ok'd it, then fine. I wouldn't, and most gms I know wouldn't. I will not hide the fact that I dislike it. But it's up to your gm.

And no, most don't agree with you. It's at best 50/50.

In a rules lawyer situation, it is up to a judge to decide. The judge in this case is the GM. As a GM, I would not allow it. I gave my reason. It is cheese. It is a perfectly sound argument. The fact you dislike it does not make it any less of a reasonable assertion to make.

Maybe my accusation was wrong, maybe it's not. This came across as dejected whining to me. But true or not, if you can't handle people giving you thoughts you dislike, I suggest leaving the internet.

[BowStreetRunner]

This is you not me. You don't like this trick so you are just blindly yelling nonsensical arguments in hopes that your volume overcomes logic. And then when no one agrees with you you start throwing a tantrum and insulting other people.
Let's take a look at just when this discussion turned personal instead of a debate on the issue.

Got a source for that one as well? Or are you just treating your interpretations as rules?

You are trying to cheese a feat to cheese a spell which can be used for cheese in order to obtain more cheese.

Im not the one claiming that OP's idea won't work based on what i am interpretting from the rules, you are, without also providing proof of your claims. So no, you still gotta provide proof of your claims, otherwise youre arguing "rules as i interpret them" which is not what OP was asking for.

You just made that part up.

You're the one making things up. But I don't expect anyone is going to convince you. You didn't come here to listen to anyone who disagreed with you. You came here hoping to find others to reinforce the same opinion you hold and are only prepared to reject anything else, not to listen and seriously consider an opposing point of view.

This is you not me. You don't like this trick so you are just blindly yelling nonsensical arguments in hopes that your volume overcomes logic. And then when no one agrees with you you start throwing a tantrum and insulting other people.
Seems to me I was making rational arguments regarding the interpretation of the rules and you started ignoring the arguments and attacking the person making them. And now your immaturity is really showing. How exactly do my arguments amount to blindly yelled nonsense? Where was the volume I was using to overcome logic? Keep insulting others and then accuse them of doing the insulting. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not permit you to make personal attacks and does not invalidate their arguments.

[ExLibrisMortis]

He didn't throw any insult your way, he threw an accusation.
No, there was an insult in there, as well; the words "hissy fit" aren't ever used for anything but condescending personal attacks. Calthropstu is well-known for his personal crusade against "cheese", and he's really annoying about it. For example, see his post: "I will not hide the fact that I dislike it"--a sure sign of trolling disguised as honesty.

[umbergod]

No, there was an insult in there, as well; the words "hissy fit" aren't ever used for anything but condescending personal attacks. Calthropstu is well-known for his personal crusade against "cheese", and he's really annoying about it. For example, see his post: "I will not hide the fact that I dislike it"--a sure sign of trolling disguised as honesty.

This, so much. Nevermind the fact that planar binding can be utilized without resorting to "cheesy tactics" with a modicum of self restraint.

[Mato]

SO, if I boost my caster level by 2 to meet the minimum caster level, is this trick legit with all those opposed silenced?


Any feat or ability that increases your caster level does not then grant you access to new spells.

You did not understand what I wrote.


As Nerdhut said, your caster-level has nothing to do with what spells you can cast. The versatile spellcaster trick is either allowed or disallowed by your DM, and that's the end of it.

Again, the people who claim this trick didn't work said it didn't work because you didn't have the requisite caster level to cast higher level spells.


Quite well. There's a lot of PrC that add spells to your spells known. You've just got to have the right sorcerer level to actually have those spells known, which are based on the table on the sorcerer class description. You don't have the "bonus" spell known until you gain access to spells known of that level, then you get it. Versatile Spellcaster doesn't change any of it when you're willfully ignoring the basics here.

Ultimate Magus explicitly states you can have spells that you know but cannot cast. Malconvoker explicitly states it adds those spells to your spell known. I think it's pretty clear you are incorrect here.

You are absolutely right. There isn't any ambiguity. There. Right there. In that single situation that applies specifically to Ultimate Magus.
However, it has absolutely no bearing on anything else.

Actually, it doesn't.

It states "you can add the following spells to your class spell list and your list of known spells (or your spellbook) at the indicated levels." The indicated level for lesser planar binding is 5th.
So it is a 5th level sorcerer spell for the Malconvoker.

What are your points exactly? That Malconvoker doesn't add those spells directly to my sorcerer's spell known upon reaching 2nd level malconvoker?

Kids, don't be like sorcererlover. Never post a question with the goal to argue anyone that answers it with something that disagrees with the answer you already came up with before asking for more information on the subject.

And while we're at it.

Starting to cast
First you must choose which spell to cast. If you prepare spells, you select from among spells prepared earlier in the day and not yet cast. If you cast spells spontaneously, you can select any spell you know, provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level or higher and you have an appropriate spell slot available. If a spell has multiple versions, you choose which version to use when you cast it. You don’t have to prepare or know a specific version of the spell.
I suppose you can engage in all the circular logic you like of what you think a character is capable of and start new threads with malicious troll-like intentions since the moderators don't care. But Versatile Spellcaster does not give you a spell slot so a 9th level sorcerer is completely incapable of even selecting the option to cast a 5th level spell such as planar binding. The answer is no and there is no point in continuing discussion with sorcererlover.

[umbergod]

Kids, don't be like sorcererlover. Never post a question with the goal to argue anyone that answers it with something that disagrees with the answer you already came up with before asking for more information on the subject.

And while we're at it.

I suppose you can engage in all the circular logic you like of what you think a character is capable of and start new threads with malicious troll-like intentions since the moderators don't care. But Versatile Spellcaster does not give you a spell slot so a 9th level sorcerer is completely incapable of even selecting the option to cast a 5th level spell such as planar binding. The answer is no and there is no point in continuing discussion with sorcererlover.

Then explain Precocious Apprentice. Caster level 1, and able to cast a 2nd level spell. That directly contradicts the rules youre quoting, so to act as if that rule cant be superseded is disingenuous

Edit: furthermore, versatile spellcaster says NOTHING about granting a spell slot of a higher level, you added that yourself. It specifically says "you can use 2 spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know of 1 level higher" given that malconvoker explicitly grants planar binding to spells known, the only ambiguity anyone sees is due to their interpretation of RAW

[BluesEclipse]

Then explain Precocious Apprentice. Caster level 1, and able to cast a 2nd level spell. That directly contradicts the rules youre quoting, so to act as if that rule cant be superseded is disingenuous

Edit: furthermore, versatile spellcaster says NOTHING about granting a spell slot of a higher level, you added that yourself. It specifically says "you can use 2 spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know of 1 level higher" given that malconvoker explicitly grants planar binding to spells known, the only ambiguity anyone sees is due to their interpretation of RAW

Precocious apprentice gives a specific exemption to the rule that you must have the minimum class level required for 2nd-level spells to cast the spell of a higher level. Versatile spellcaster does not offer an exemption to that requirement.

[umbergod]

Precocious apprentice gives a specific exemption to the rule that you must have the minimum class level required for 2nd-level spells to cast the spell of a higher level. Versatile spellcaster does not offer an exemption to that requirement.

Versatile Spellcaster doesnt say anything about a spell youre "able to cast" but a spell you "know". A 1st level wizard can have any level spells in his spellbook, regardless of ability to cast them. A sorcerer can have knowledge of a spell when its specifically granted by an outside source. Example sorcerer has planar binding as a 5th level spell known. Absolutely nothing RAW would stop that sorcerer from burning two 4th lvl slots to cast it, youre arguing RAI.

[Mato]

Then explain Precocious Apprentice.I don't need to, all you need to do is learn to read the rule entries instead of incorrect summarizations about part of it on the forums. Like try reading the second paragraph.

Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances. When you become able to cast 2nd-level spells, you lose the benefit described above but retain the extra 2nd-level spell slot, which you can use to prepare or spontaneously cast a spell of 2nd level or lower as you normally would. Finally, you gain a +2 bonus on all Spellcraft checks.The feat say it works even through it normally shouldn't making it an exception and it also says it has a completely different effect when you can actually cast the next spell level. With the rest of the information it becomes apparent that even a child can realize that precocious apprentice was written in such a way that it doesn't consider its self to grant you the ability to cast 2nd level spells anymore than a wand gives the fighter the ability to cast spells.

Since it supplies a slot and allows you to cast it even if your level is insufficient to cast it normally, it works just fine with the RC entry provided earlier. But it still doesn't give you the ability to cast 2nd level spells and I can understand if that is a hard concept for you to understand. Most people think they have a lot of rights or abilities they don't actually have. Like a few hours ago you thought you were well informed on the matter and your opinion on them was right but as turns out you were just using a series of false equivalences applied to only part of information you should have read about.

[BluesEclipse]

Versatile Spellcaster doesnt say anything about a spell youre "able to cast" but a spell you "know". A 1st level wizard can have any level spells in his spellbook, regardless of ability to cast them. A sorcerer can have knowledge of a spell when its specifically granted by an outside source. Example sorcerer has planar binding as a 5th level spell known. Absolutely nothing RAW would stop that sorcerer from burning two 4th lvl slots to cast it, youre arguing RAI.

To confirm, you are also asserting that in this example case, the sorc in question could cast planar binding with a CHA of 14? That is the rule I am looking at, which calls out that a caster must meet both the minimum ability score and class level to cast any spell. Precocious Apprentice specifically overrides the class level portion of that rule, but Versatile Spellcaster does not mention exemptions to any other requirements for the spell you cast with it.

[umbergod]

To confirm, you are also asserting that in this example case, the sorc in question could cast planar binding with a CHA of 14? That is the rule I am looking at, which calls out that a caster must meet both the minimum ability score and class level to cast any spell. Precocious Apprentice specifically overrides the class level portion of that rule, but Versatile Spellcaster does not mention exemptions to any other requirements for the spell you cast with it.

Show me where versatile spellcaster says anything about being able to cast the higher level spell? Oh thats right, it doesn't. It specifically says you have to know the spell, nothing more. So you can continue to argue "rules as i interpret them" but you're being willfully obstinate by using your interpretations rather than the RAW text

[BluesEclipse]

Show me where versatile spellcaster says anything about being able to cast the higher level spell? Oh thats right, it doesn't. It specifically says you have to know the spell, nothing more. So you can continue to argue "rules as i interpret them" but you're being willfully obstinate by using your interpretations rather than the RAW text

Please reread my posts - I am trying to understand the limits of what this allows, as I am not certain whether my reading of these rules is accurate. By your argument, you are stating that when casting a spell using Versatile Spellcaster, as long as the spell is on your spells known list through any method, you can ignore any other requirements of that spell including minimum class level and minimum ability score in the casting stat?

[umbergod]

Please reread my posts - I am trying to understand the limits of what this allows, as I am not certain whether my reading of these rules is accurate. By your argument, you are stating that when casting a spell using Versatile Spellcaster, as long as the spell is on your spells known list through any method, you can ignore any other requirements of that spell including minimum class level and minimum ability score in the casting stat?

Depends really. As a DM, i would allow it, simply bc spontaneous casters are already behind in power and flexibility compared to wizards. Going by just the RAW, all you have to do is know the spell you intend to cast, it says nothing about the ability to cast it, just knowledge of it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

By your argument, you are stating that when casting a spell using Versatile Spellcaster, as long as the spell is on your spells known list through any method, you can ignore any other requirements of that spell including minimum class level and minimum ability score in the casting stat?
I think that would be the case, yes. Versatile Spellcaster says you can cast a spell [that you know, by giving up two spell slots of a lower level], which is unambiguously permission to, you know, cast the spell. That permission isn't qualified by "if you would otherwise be able to cast the spell" or similar, and it is more specific than the general rules that allow you to cast spells, so there is no reason to think that any of the general rules override Versatile Spellcaster.

[RoboEmperor]

Seems to me I was making rational arguments regarding the interpretation of the rules and you started ignoring the arguments and attacking the person making them. And now your immaturity is really showing. How exactly do my arguments amount to blindly yelled nonsense? Where was the volume I was using to overcome logic? Keep insulting others and then accuse them of doing the insulting. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not permit you to make personal attacks and does not invalidate their arguments.

No, you weren't making rational arguments. You were just repeating the same incorrect argument over and over while ignoring the correct counter argument.

Also you were the first one to make personal attacks. Sorcererlover's hostility started when you called him someone who "came here hoping to find others to reinforce the same opinion you hold and are only prepared to reject anything else, not to listen and seriously consider an opposing point of view."

This here is a great example. You're in the wrong, twice, and yet you only blame others and not yourself.


This. And planar binding is cheese plain and simple. I have never not seen it used for cheese, even by myself. Getting even just one 12 hd creature for your own personal use is cheese. It severely hurt my game anyways when I bound a coatl to my service.

I once used it to throw a hundred hound archons at my enemies to serve as spies and agents of good in a city overrun by evil. Cheese.

I once used it to get 30 wishes to bump all of my stats by +5. Cheese.

If your gm ok'd it, then fine. I wouldn't, and most gms I know wouldn't. I will not hide the fact that I dislike it. But it's up to your gm.

By your logic wizards should be permanently removed from the game because the amount of cheese they can theoretically bring.

I use planar binding in every single game I play and I have never done anything even remotely close to the cheese you did in yours. So it's really your fault you ruined your games with planar binding. I mean seriously, you bind efreetis, create wish loops, and say you're not intentionally abusing the spell?

If a lone couatl breaks your game then you must be playing some seriously low-op games. There's nothing wrong with that but there is something wrong with calling everything that doesn't fit in low-op games cheese.


Kids, don't be like sorcererlover. Never post a question with the goal to argue anyone that answers it with something that disagrees with the answer you already came up with before asking for more information on the subject.

What's wrong with doing this? I made posts to see if I was wrong on an issue and defeneded my position to the best I can. I mean sure, I do regret some of my actions, and I did end up being an incredibly stubborn bastard about the issue only to change my opinion after several months since the thread died, but what's wrong with that? Isn't this what discussion on forums is all about?

[Segev]

This. And planar binding is cheese plain and simple. I have never not seen it used for cheese, even by myself.I'm currently using it in a game to give a Hound Archon pseudocohort to one of my party members, and to bind a Lantern Archon for my own wizard's use mostly as a scout and messenger. Also occasional light source.



Kids, don't be like sorcererlover. Never post a question with the goal to argue anyone that answers it with something that disagrees with the answer you already came up with before asking for more information on the subject.It would help if any of the posts you quoted included any citations or backing other than, "No, it doesn't work that way," and, as sorcererlover rightly pointed out in the posts you quoted, didn't fail to address the specific argument he made.

There were such posts, which had citations and addressed his point, but you didn't quote any of them. There were also counterarguments against those, and thus we have a thread full of debate.



I suppose you can engage in all the circular logic you like of what you think a character is capable of and start new threads with malicious troll-like intentions since the moderators don't care. But Versatile Spellcaster does not give you a spell slot so a 9th level sorcerer is completely incapable of even selecting the option to cast a 5th level spell such as planar binding. The answer is no and there is no point in continuing discussion with sorcererlover.If you honestly believe him to be trolling, report him to the moderators. Otherwise, stop leveling insults meant to silence somebody with whom you disagree.

You clearly did NOT read what he wrote, since you're ignoring that he accounted for the knowledge of the 5th level spell despite not having any sorcerer-class-granted 5th level spells-known slots. By his reading, Malconvoker gives him knowledge of planar binding independent of his sorcerer level. Without a spell slot to cast it from, it doesn't do him much good, but it does give him that knowledge. Versatile Spellcaster gives him means to acquire a 5th level spell slot that he otherwise wouldn't. He can thus have the spell and the appropriate-level slot to cast it.

The part you quoted in red is ill-defined, which is why all we have are tautological definitions. You have sufficient caster level to cast a spell of that level when you have a spell slot from which to cast a spell of that level. So, when you have access to a spell slot of sufficient level, whatever your CL is is sufficient CL to cast the spell.

You can add text to it to make the definition harder than that. In your own games, if that's the limit you wish to place, I encourage you to do so. But the rules here are nebulous enough that you don't get a firm answer without asking the GM of the game in question. But as long as we're operating with only the rules as printed in the rule books to operate from, the best logical analysis I can give it or have seen supports allowing the Versatile Spellcaster trick. This in no way says that you can do it in a game where the DM says otherwise.

[Cosi]

I think the people saying "ask your DM" are missing the point. Yes, obviously you have to ask your DM. But many DMs are going to make their decisions based on the rules, or what the perceive the rules to be. If you can present a good argument for what you want being RAW, that will help persuade your DM to give you what you want.


Everywhere I look there's always mention of a minimum CL for class. I've been using Sublime Chord, Nar Demonbinder, and Ur-Priests to argue that there wasn't a minimum CL for class, but I've come to realize these are just exceptions to the rule. d&d is full of exceptions to the rule so the existence of these 3 accelerated progression classes do not disprove general rules.

Wat.

That's not how "having a general rule" works. If there was a general rule, the game would be almost empty of it. The game does not say "a Fighter adds his BAB to attack rolls" or "a Wizard adds his BAB to attack rolls" or "a Seeker of the Misty Isle adds her BAB to attack rolls". It has a general rule that you add your BAB to attack rolls, and that rule applies to anyone who has a BAB and happens to make an attack roll. The commonality of the rule that you can only cast spells you have the caster level to cast makes it a common rule, but it does nothing to make it the default. For something to apply in cases where it is not specifically stated to apply, it has to be stated to apply in all cases (which, arguably, counts as specifically stating it to apply for any particular case).


This. And planar binding is cheese plain and simple.

Stop.

What do you mean by cheese?

Do you mean "planar binding allows you to negate the contributions of the rest of the party"? Do you mean "planar binding allows you an advantage disproportionate to its costs"? You're putting the cart before the horse, when there are a lot of reasonable definitions of cheese for which various uses of planar binding do not apply.


In a rules lawyer situation, it is up to a judge to decide. The judge in this case is the GM. As a GM, I would not allow it. I gave my reason. It is cheese. It is a perfectly sound argument. The fact you dislike it does not make it any less of a reasonable assertion to make.

It's a sound argument, but it's not a valid argument. Saying "its's cheese, therefore ban it" is like saying "it starts with the letter P, therefore ban it" or "it has a casting time that's an even number of minutes, therefore ban it". It may be true that planar binding is cheese (although, of course, you have not yet demonstrated that). It may be true that you should ban it. But you haven't demonstrated that you should ban it because it is cheese.

[Segev]

Saying "its's cheese, therefore ban it" is like saying "it starts with the letter P, therefore ban it" or "it has a casting time that's an even number of minutes, therefore ban it".

It starts with P, and that rhymes with T, which stands for TROUBLE!

[BluesEclipse]

I can see the RAW argument, and understand how it would be valid (even if attempting to use it at my tables would result in thrown books).

That said, if we are agreeing that by RAW the feat eliminates all other casting reps, there has to be some way to abuse the ability to ignore minimum casting stat for a gish build with this feat. Has anyone here used that fact in any TO builds?

[death390]

Precocious apprentice gives a specific exemption to the rule that you must have the minimum class level required for 2nd-level spells to cast the spell of a higher level. Versatile spellcaster does not offer an exemption to that requirement.


verstaile spellcaster gives a specific exemption to the standard casting rules. "You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher." so even if you must have a minimum caster level, casting mod, ect. would i rules this as a DM? no. i would at least make it so you must have the attribute mod to cast the spell.

[Calthropstu]

I think the people saying "ask your DM" are missing the point. Yes, obviously you have to ask your DM. But many DMs are going to make their decisions based on the rules, or what the perceive the rules to be. If you can present a good argument for what you want being RAW, that will help persuade your DM to give you what you want.


Fair enough. It is always up to the gm, and looking for sound arguments for or against things is a majority of this forum.

But the OP clearly left the realm of logical debate quite some time ago. My statement of extreme cheese stands, rules lawyering to cheese a feat to get one of the most game breaking spells in the game a full 2 levels early is a tad much.




What do you mean by cheese?

Do you mean "planar binding allows you to negate the contributions of the rest of the party"? Do you mean "planar binding allows you an advantage disproportionate to its costs"? You're putting the cart before the horse, when there are a lot of reasonable definitions of cheese for which various uses of planar binding do not apply.



It's a sound argument, but it's not a valid argument. Saying "its's cheese, therefore ban it" is like saying "it starts with the letter P, therefore ban it" or "it has a casting time that's an even number of minutes, therefore ban it". It may be true that planar binding is cheese (although, of course, you have not yet demonstrated that). It may be true that you should ban it. But you haven't demonstrated that you should ban it because it is cheese.

Not saying ban planar binding. I myself do not in my games. But planar binding must be watched extremely closely by a gm because its potential for abuse is near infinite. A skilled GM can mitigate that, but a 10th level caster conjuring and controlling cr 12 (or higher) monsters? That's extreme. Even for here. Even if OP CAN do this RAW (which has been demonstrated he can't, but let's say he could), it doesn't mean he SHOULD.

(I say "or higher" because planar binding is limited only by hd. You can apply numerous templates to creatures without ever increasing their hd... cheese.)

As for your "P" argument, not a valid assertion. "Cheese," depending on level of cheese, can obliterate games. It can break up long standing campaigns, make the game unfun for people, steal the spotlight from others and even ruin friendships. The letter "P" can't do that... unless there's some really wierd stuff happening.

Game breaking cheese (which the abuse of this feat most certainly fits this category) should be actively discouraged. Planar binding, by itself, is not automatically game breaking cheese and, done right, can enhance the game immensely and be a lot of fun (The hundred hound archons acting as spies was a lot of fun for all involved... leading to many "who let the dogs out" jokes). Throwing it around too early, however, trivializes pretty much anything. "Oh, we're 10th level going up against a 12th level caster? Lets conjure a 12hd outsider raising our party's power exponentially!"

I can't think of many uses that a 10th level party could put a 12 hd outsider to that is not grossly affecting the game.

[umbergod]

Sounds like your issue with planar binding is less the spell and more ignoring the full wording of the spell.
"If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free."

Thats on top of them being able to roll vs the spell daily to break free, and any attempt to compel them provides ANOTHER chance to break free. Sooo maybe, just maybe, youve been abusing the spell and hoping your DM doesnt notice youre ignoring half of the spell description?

[Cosi]

But the OP clearly left the realm of logical debate quite some time ago. My statement of extreme cheese stands, rules lawyering to cheese a feat to get one of the most game breaking spells in the game a full 2 levels early is a tad much.

Unless there's some other thing I'm missing, a Sorcerer/Malconvoker using Versatile Spellcaster gets planar binding at the exact same time as a Wizard does. She gets it two levels faster than she would have if she hadn't taken the feat, but she also could have gotten it two levels faster by instead being a Wizard.


(which has been demonstrated he can't, but let's say he could)

I don't really think it has been. It seems to me that if you have something that adds to your spells known, you can jump a level up with Versatile Spellcaster. The arguments against that position don't seem very strong, and often seem like they have unintentional consequences.


(I say "or higher" because planar binding is limited only by hd. You can apply numerous templates to creatures without ever increasing their hd... cheese.)

But also, like, lower, right? I mean, yeah, the spell lets you do broken stuff. But not all the stuff it lets you do is broken.


As for your "P" argument, not a valid assertion.

Yes. They are none of them valid. Not mine, not yours. Because "valid" means "the conclusion follows from the premises" and in the syllogism "X is Y, therefore Z", the conclusion (Z), does not follow from the premises until you establish that "if something is Y, therefore Z" and probably "X is Y", because the thing you're claiming ("cheese") does not have a generally accepted definition. You are trying to pull a slight of hand where you equate something to general term for "bad stuff" that is loosely defined, and you precisely that lack of precison to avoid having to justify yourself.


"Cheese," depending on level of cheese, can obliterate games.

You understand this makes your argument worse, not better, right? Saying "X is bad if it is enough Y" means you not only have to demonstrate that X is Y, but that X is Y to whatever level causes the problem you are identifying. I'm sure there are games that can be "obliterated" by playing a Wizard and making moderately effective character choices. There are also games where someone who is "just" casting planar binding out of the spell slots they get from their class would be a joke character that could not possibly contribute.


Game breaking cheese (which the abuse of this feat most certainly fits this category) should be actively discouraged.

Really? This is "game breaking cheese"? It does not seem to me that something that, at the end of the day, puts you on roughly a level with a Wizard who has simply taken Wizard levels is "game breaking cheese", unless your standard for that is something stupid like "there are worse characters".

[Anthrowhale]

I'm with Cosi/Troacctid/etc... here. I don't see a valid argument that by RAW you can't cast +1-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster since it creates the exception needed.

The minimum caster level limits implied by some parts of the rules don't formally create a RAW requirement as far as I know but it's very natural to infer a minimum caster level limit. The minimum caster level discussed in Echoing Spell creates a particularly broad implied rule. As a DM, I would probably enforce minimum caster level limits since casters are so powerful anyways. I would also enforce required stat limits.

Using the Mother Cyst feat to get access to Necrotic Domination at ECL 5 with a Spontaneous Cleric seems like a more extreme version of this. Necrotic Domination is a L4 spell that mimics the effect of an L5 spell. Mother Cyst grants it as a spell known. Altogether, the ability to pump out Domination effects 4 levels earlier than normal is impressive.

A real head-scratcher is: What is the caster level and save DC if a wizard 1/sorcerer 19 uses versatile spellcaster to cast a spell from the wizard's spellbook? By RAW, this appears possible since a wizard explicitly knows their spells. Versatile Spellcaster is silent about whether the spells-known source is relevant or the spell slot source is relevant. I'd probably go with the spell known source since that seems less abusable.

[RoboEmperor]

Game breaking cheese (which the abuse of this feat most certainly fits this category) should be actively discouraged. Planar binding, by itself, is not automatically game breaking cheese and, done right, can enhance the game immensely and be a lot of fun (The hundred hound archons acting as spies was a lot of fun for all involved... leading to many "who let the dogs out" jokes). Throwing it around too early, however, trivializes pretty much anything. "Oh, we're 10th level going up against a 12th level caster? Lets conjure a 12hd outsider raising our party's power exponentially!"

I can't think of many uses that a 10th level party could put a 12 hd outsider to that is not grossly affecting the game.

Fyi Nar Demonbinders get Planar Binding at level 10. So is this PrC a game breaking cheese PrC?

And as others pointed out, versatile spellcaster abusing sorcerers don't even get planar binding 1 level earlier. They get it at the same level as wizards.

The only way I can see Versatile Spellcaster be used as cheese is for some kind of early entry shenanigan to cram as many prcs as possible into your build. But you're not saying this is cheese because of that. You're saying it's cheese because it lets spontaneous casters cast planar binding at the same level as wizards.

Spontaneous Divine Caster Variant Clerics from Unearthed Arcana can cast planar binding at 10 with versatile spellcasters, but that build has way too many problems and Nar Demonbinders still does it better than this guy.


Wat.

That's not how "having a general rule" works. If there was a general rule, the game would be almost empty of it. The game does not say "a Fighter adds his BAB to attack rolls" or "a Wizard adds his BAB to attack rolls" or "a Seeker of the Misty Isle adds her BAB to attack rolls". It has a general rule that you add your BAB to attack rolls, and that rule applies to anyone who has a BAB and happens to make an attack roll. The commonality of the rule that you can only cast spells you have the caster level to cast makes it a common rule, but it does nothing to make it the default. For something to apply in cases where it is not specifically stated to apply, it has to be stated to apply in all cases (which, arguably, counts as specifically stating it to apply for any particular case).

Some people here are making really good arguments here so I'm just gonna tap out and see how the arguments resolve. I'm hope I'm wrong because I like spontaneous casters.

[Calthropstu]

Sounds like your issue with planar binding is less the spell and more ignoring the full wording of the spell.
"If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free."

Thats on top of them being able to roll vs the spell daily to break free, and any attempt to compel them provides ANOTHER chance to break free. Sooo maybe, just maybe, youve been abusing the spell and hoping your DM doesnt notice youre ignoring half of the spell description?

Negative on all accounts. The character I abused planar binding with had CHA of 36. His DC was so high they needed a nat 20 to save. And if you read the text, the sr check is negated by a simple diagram. The daily check is a simple charisma check, and the dc was such that a nat 20 wouldn't succeed since it wasn't a saving throw.
Their choice was sit and do nothing until the spell wore out and they would be sent home or perform my tasks.
I am well versed in how planar binding works.

Fyi Nar Demonbinders get Planar Binding at level 10. So is this PrC a game breaking cheese PrC?


Yes, yes it is. At least in my opinion. Especially if they cast off charisma.




And as others pointed out, versatile spellcaster abusing sorcerers don't even get planar binding 1 level earlier. They get it at the same level as wizards.

The only way I can see Versatile Spellcaster be used as cheese is for some kind of early entry shenanigan to cram as many prcs as possible into your build. But you're not saying this is cheese because of that. You're saying it's cheese because it lets spontaneous casters cast planar binding early.

Actually, it can. Prestigious caster lets someone get a lost caster level back. Bringing it back to a lower than wizard level.
A wizard building for planar binding loses a massive advantage spell casters have: they become multi ability dependent. They need to buff both their charisma AND their intelligence requiring vastly more resources to cast planar binding with virtual guaranteed success.
To be honest, such a build would be extremely difficult for anyone to pull under any gm I play under.

Charisma based spontaneous casters have massive advantages when it comes to planar binding.

[RoboEmperor]

Charisma based spontaneous casters have massive advantages when it comes to planar binding.

An 8 CHA cleric has a 100% chance of succeeding the charisma check with a combination of Surge of Fortune Spell, Eagle's Splendor, and Circlet of Persuasion for most creatures, and there are a lot more things that can boost your charisma. Lust Domain Power or Moment of Prescience makes it a 100% chance of succeeding the charisma against every outsider in the game.

8 CHA Wizards can do the same thing by adding Surge of Fortune to their class spell list via the Wyrm Wizard PrC.

On top of all this Wizards and Clerics can also debuff the bound creature's Charisma to hell

CHA based spontaneous casters however, can either try to win the check with a devastating failure on the roll of 1, or try to emulate clerics and wizards and delay their spell progression considerably by grabbing wyrm wizard themselves.

So how exactly are CHA based spontaneous casters so much more superior to prepared casters?

Anyways Nar Demonbinder is considered one of the worst spellcasting PrCs due to the fact they don't have level 9 spells and only 1 level 8 spell slot, so if you consider them OP then I guess we can all see just how low-op of a game you consider as normal.

edit:
Also there's the fact about what's so wrong about having a 100% success chance? Are you insinuating that planar binding will be balanced if and only if it results in a TPK 50% of the time?

[umbergod]

Claims 36 cha @ CL 10, then proceeds to talk about how broken planar binding is......funny that you claim to hate cheese Cathropstu, bc your example smells like pretty damned ripe cheese. Your inability to restrain yourself with potential game breaking spells doesnt automatically mean any use of said spell is cheese. It just means you have no self control :)

[sorcererlover]

Claims 36 cha @ CL 10, then proceeds to talk about how broken planar binding is......funny that you claim to hate cheese Cathropstu, bc your example smells like pretty damned ripe cheese. Your inability to restrain yourself with potential game breaking spells doesnt automatically mean any use of said spell is cheese. It just means you have no self control :)

Yeah so it's clear that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and it's clear he has more than a few screws loose in his brain, so perhaps letting him hijack this thread by responding to his off-topic rants is not the best course of action.

[BowStreetRunner]

Yeah so it's clear that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and it's clear he has more than a few screws loose in his brain, so perhaps letting him hijack this thread by responding to his off-topic rants is not the best course of action.
Why don't you save your personal attacks for PMs and leave the discussion threads to those who actually want to discuss the topic?

[Calthropstu]

Claims 36 cha @ CL 10, then proceeds to talk about how broken planar binding is......funny that you claim to hate cheese Cathropstu, bc your example smells like pretty damned ripe cheese. Your inability to restrain yourself with potential game breaking spells doesnt automatically mean any use of said spell is cheese. It just means you have no self control :)

Ummm, cl 12 actually. Sorcerers don't get planar binding until 12th lvl.
As for nar demonbinder, never looked at it before. So tell me oh great one, what uses do YOU put it to that aren't cheese?
I deliberately cheesed that character to the max. I openly admit it. But here are the uses I see for that spell:
Getting a single 12 hd adherant. From an 11-12 lvl caster, this is pretty much doubling your power level.
Getting a small army of capable 12 hd (or larger army of lower) outsiders. No explanation needed.
Getting a being with greater teleport to deliver something. Either 1: you're wasting a 6th lvl spell slot to deliver a message or you are abusing the spell to gain access to an 8th lvl spell.
Getting a succubus for poontang. Ok, this isn't cheese, just stupid.
Conjuring genies for wishes. No cheese explanation needed.
I suppose you could apply it creatively to do something such as bind a demon attacking a town and force it to stop, or bind a chaotic good outsider preventing anyone frpm arresting her favorite bard. Even for just obtaining information. Situationally, it could be quite useful.
But that's a wizard thing. A spontaneous caster gets spells he's going to cast frequently. And frequent use of planar binding means cheese.

[umbergod]

Ummm, cl 12 actually. Sorcerers don't get planar binding until 12th lvl.
As for nar demonbinder, never looked at it before. So tell me oh great one, what uses do YOU put it to that aren't cheese?
I deliberately cheesed that character to the max. I openly admit it. But here are the uses I see for that spell:
Getting a single 12 hd adherant. From an 11-12 lvl caster, this is pretty much doubling your power level.
Getting a small army of capable 12 hd (or larger army of lower) outsiders. No explanation needed.
Getting a being with greater teleport to deliver something. Either 1: you're wasting a 6th lvl spell slot to deliver a message or you are abusing the spell to gain access to an 8th lvl spell.
Getting a succubus for poontang. Ok, this isn't cheese, just stupid.
Conjuring genies for wishes. No cheese explanation needed.
I suppose you could apply it creatively to do something such as bind a demon attacking a town and force it to stop, or bind a chaotic good outsider preventing anyone frpm arresting her favorite bard. Even for just obtaining information. Situationally, it could be quite useful.
But that's a wizard thing. A spontaneous caster gets spells he's going to cast frequently. And frequent use of planar binding means cheese.

So you claim, loudly, that you hate "cheese" yet you utilize it shamelessly? That makes you a hypocrite by definition. Caster level 12 and 36 charisma, yet you cry about a spell. Gtfo with your gouda.

Planar binding can be used for a variety of non cheese uses. Information gathering, supplying a guard for an important npc, shoring up your own personal weaknesses with a bound meatshield.

Your entire stance is that if it can be used to break things, it will be. Sorry but not everyone suffers from the same lack of self control as you. I regularly played artificers, and never once came close to breaking the game i played in, due to restraint and not wanting to ruin the game for everyone else.

Your bit about spontaneous casters with planar binding holds zero merit, as the example OP has given doesnt waste a reg spell known slot on it, it was granted for free by a specific prestige class. Means it can be used as frequently, or infrequently, as the sorcerer wants, with no loss of power.

But please, tell us how you hate cheese whilst reeking of brie

[Snowbluff]

I'm with Cosi/Troacctid/etc... here. I don't see a valid argument that by RAW you can't cast +1-level spells with Versatile Spellcaster since it creates the exception needed.

The minimum caster level limits implied by some parts of the rules don't formally create a RAW requirement as far as I know but it's very natural to infer a minimum caster level limit. The minimum caster level discussed in Echoing Spell creates a particularly broad implied rule. As a DM, I would probably enforce minimum caster level limits since casters are so powerful anyways. I would also enforce required stat limits.

My thoughts exactly. Versatile spellcaster works this way by way. Minimum caster levels are not defined by RAW, and are also subjective as spells can be cast at various levels since they are on many class spell lists at different levels.

[Calthropstu]

So you claim, loudly, that you hate "cheese" yet you utilize it shamelessly? That makes you a hypocrite by definition. Caster level 12 and 36 charisma, yet you cry about a spell. Gtfo with your gouda.

Planar binding can be used for a variety of non cheese uses. Information gathering, supplying a guard for an important npc, shoring up your own personal weaknesses with a bound meatshield.

Your entire stance is that if it can be used to break things, it will be. Sorry but not everyone suffers from the same lack of self control as you. I regularly played artificers, and never once came close to breaking the game i played in, due to restraint and not wanting to ruin the game for everyone else.

Your bit about spontaneous casters with planar binding holds zero merit, as the example OP has given doesnt waste a reg spell known slot on it, it was granted for free by a specific prestige class. Means it can be used as frequently, or infrequently, as the sorcerer wants, with no loss of power.

But please, tell us how you hate cheese whilst reeking of brie

Is a man who blew off his hand playing with fireworks telling you to not play with fireworks a hypocrite?

Idiot.

[Segev]

Fair enough. It is always up to the gm, and looking for sound arguments for or against things is a majority of this forum.

But the OP clearly left the realm of logical debate quite some time ago. My statement of extreme cheese stands, rules lawyering to cheese a feat to get one of the most game breaking spells in the game a full 2 levels early is a tad much.Actually, the argument that most prominently leaves the realm of logical debate in this thread is the one that says, "It's cheese, because it's obviously cheese, therefore it's cheese." You're asserting your conclusion as your premise, and ignoring all other arguments.

You have no support for your "statement of extreme cheese" aside from having asserted it, yourself. And that's fine, mind, because "cheese" is always somewhat subjective, and there's a blurry line there.

However, you do not get to claim that the OP has ceased to argue logic just because the logic he's arguing leads to conclusions you find distasteful. Logic doesn't care if you don't like the fact that there is only enough food to feed 3 survivors over the winter, and we have 10 people, so we either need to find more food, get rid of 7 people, or all starve to death. Logic just says that those are our options. You saying "that's not fair!" or "that breaks our survival plans!" doesn't magically create more food.

The OP has argued logic. You've ceased to do so.

[umbergod]

Is a man who blew off his hand playing with fireworks telling you to not play with fireworks a hypocrite?

Idiot.

Hmmm sure looks like ad hominem insults being leveled because you have no self restraint when it comes to playing dnd?

Love your analogy, though im curious how you "blew off your hand" due to your inability to control yourself. As someone that has actually had fireworks explode in his hands, this is laughable. Continue to rationalize your utilization of the things you claim to hate, you're only making yourself look like a fool

[RoboEmperor]

So tell me oh great one, what uses do YOU put it to that aren't cheese?

I bind ravids with lesser planar binding to perpetually animate a gargantuan stone statue because they are robots and i like robots.

I bind steel predators with planar binding and make em stand on hindlegs when we aren't moving because they look like robots and i like robots.

Once I get a +2 hd feat/class ability I bind Ember Guards because they look like robots too.

Once I hit level 15/16 I bind Paelyrions for their at-will meteor swarm, or mature nabassus for at-will enervation, or a Pit Fiend because they look freaking badass, or a balor because they're badass too except they don't have wish (which is good because wish is cheese) but I don't like his whip. The reason I'm binding these outsiders is because I couldn't find a 18hd-ish outsider that looks like a robot.

If you're wondering why I don't play artificers is because they require massive wealth, massive down time, and when their construct dies in combat you have to retire the character because he has no way of resurrecting the construct and not enough wealth to replace it.

If you're banning everything that is cheese-able, i guess you ban all tier 1 and tier 2 classes, every class even caster classes can ubercharge so you ban every class, a fighter with UMD using scrolls can break the game just like a wizard so you either ban UMD or scrolls or both, and since core has too many OP stuff you ban all core books, etc. etc.

So which game is more fun? A game where the DM allows everything and no one cheeses anything at all, or a DM that bans everything that even looks like it can be cheesed? The opinions in this thread is unanimously the former (excluding you of course) and you are the only one claiming the latter is the better way to play.

I play Nar Demonbinders in FR games because I don't worship deities so cleric is out and I like building super specialized characters who can't do everything. A planar binding specialist doesn't need gate or other level 9 spells. He can contribute to the party fine with only planar binding so even if a wizard is superior to nar demonbinders in every way possible, I don't care I play for fun not to win.

@sorcererlover
The on-topic debate is at an end imo. All the naysayers stopped responding.
In my experience this debate all boils down to General v.s. Specific.
The naysayers all say "You can't cast spells you have "-" spell slots with and versatile spellcaster doesn't change that."
The yaysayers all say "Versatile Spellcaster specifically says you can so it beats that general rule."
The naysayers respond "No it can't. It doesn't say it can override that rule."
The yaysayers say "It doesn't need to directly say it. "You can cast any spell you know" overrides that general rule."

So caster level aside, this is how the debate ends with no one changing their minds on the subject matter. As you've seen in the other posts the yaysayers say that versatile spellcaster has the ability to ignore all caster level, ability score, and class level requirements while the naysayers say you can't.

[Calthropstu]

I bind ravids with lesser planar binding to perpetually animate a gargantuan stone statue because they are robots and i like robots.

I bind steel predators with planar binding and make em stand on hindlegs when we aren't moving because they look like robots and i like robots.

Once I get a +2 hd feat/class ability I bind Ember Guards because they look like robots too.

Once I hit level 15/16 I bind Paelyrions for their at-will meteor swarm, or mature nabassus for at-will enervation, or a Pit Fiend because they look freaking badass, or a balor because they're badass too except they don't have wish (which is good because wish is cheese) but I don't like his whip. The reason I'm binding these outsiders is because I couldn't find a 18hd-ish outsider that looks like a robot.

If you're wondering why I don't play artificers is because they require massive wealth, massive down time, and when their construct dies in combat you have to retire the character because he has no way of resurrecting the construct and not enough wealth to replace it.

If you're banning everything that is cheese-able, i guess you ban all tier 1 and tier 2 classes, every class even caster classes can ubercharge so you ban every class, a fighter with UMD using scrolls can break the game just like a wizard so you either ban UMD or scrolls or both, and since core has too many OP stuff you ban all core books, etc. etc.

So which game is more fun? A game where the DM allows everything and no one cheeses anything at all, or a DM that bans everything that even looks like it can be cheesed? The opinions in this thread is unanimously the former (excluding you of course) and you are the only one claiming the latter is the better way to play.

I play Nar Demonbinders in FR games because I don't worship deities so cleric is out and I like building super specialized characters who can't do everything. A planar binding specialist doesn't need gate or other level 9 spells. He can contribute to the party fine with only planar binding so even if a wizard is superior to nar demonbinders in every way possible, I don't care I play for fun not to win.

@sorcererlover
The on-topic debate is at an end imo. All the naysayers stopped responding.
In my experience this debate all boils down to General v.s. Specific.
The naysayers all say "You can't cast spells you have "-" spell slots with and versatile spellcaster doesn't change that."
The yaysayers all say "Versatile Spellcaster specifically says you can so it beats that general rule."
The naysayers respond "No it can't. It doesn't say it can override that rule."
The yaysayers say "It doesn't need to directly say it. "You can cast any spell you know" overrides that general rule."

So caster level aside, this is how the debate ends with no one changing their minds on the subject matter. As you've seen in the other posts the yaysayers say that versatile spellcaster has the ability to ignore all caster level, ability score, and class level requirements while the naysayers say you can't.

So "I use planar binding spells to gain access to higher level spells than I can cast." No, not cheese at all.

And yes, you are correct on the argument assertions. The on topic convo is exactly that. I strongly disagree with it bypassing requirements. It really can't the way it's worded, and those touting it can are blatantly disregarding casting requirements posted earlier in the thread.
If you manage to also bump caster level, you technically meet all requirements in order to select a spell known higher than you can cast.
But, as I have shown my belief to be, I think going strict raw is stupid.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: This seems to have descended into flaming. Locked for review and possibly for good.